Southwest, AirTran Brothers and Sisters!

[elcid]

Did you get his number?

No, that's not my deal. You shouldn't have too much of a problem snagging one of these guys though if that's your thing (I'm guessing?).

Says a lot about what you think of your CEO.

Not sure I follow you. Not sure if I want to either. Hey, whatever though. I'm not judging.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Pcl_128

I disagree with your premise. ALPA hasn't burned bridges with pilots at the regionals.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. In the early days of the commuters ALPA didn't really offer much in the way of support. The mainline was their only cause for concern until the regionals grew as big as they did and became a much larger contributor. Now, I hear a lot of grumbling from ALPA mainline guys for the mishandling of scope and how a HUGE portion of the mainline flying has been farmed out to the RJ. Look no further than the E190 and E195. How many seats will the next big RJ have and what mainline route will it take over?

Also, our drive at JetBlue has been going very well. The JetBlue pilots have the largest organizing committee in ALPA history, and cards are coming in at a good clip. I suspect that there will be an election in the first half of the year, and ALPA will probably be certified by a decent margin.

We'll see. I have a buddy who's trying to help get ALPA on the property and he says there's a lot of resistance. FWIW, I support your/his efforts.

ALPA has also added AirTran, ATI, North American, Colgan, and several Canadian carriers in the past few years. There isn't any indication that ALPA has "burned bridges." We've even signed a services agreement with the APA at American in recent months, and ALPA will be providing professional negotiators and financial analysis support. Many pilots are realizing the benefits of a national union and the resources that come with it

Don't get me wrong. I agree that having a national union negotiate for you has huge benefits. You guys single handedly made the Age 60 change happen and I can't tell you how many pilots at Southwest you made happy. (Well, okay about 463)

That change was going nowhere until ALPA did a 180 and decided that Age 60 was no longer a good thing and now we get five more years of the most senior guys on the property. You'll have to explain to me what changed their mind other than Woerth being shown the street.

 

[PCL_128]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. In the early days of the commuters ALPA didn't really offer much in the way of support. The mainline was their only cause for concern until the regionals grew as big as they did and became a much larger contributor. Now, I hear a lot of grumbling from ALPA mainline guys for the mishandling of scope and how a HUGE portion of the mainline flying has been farmed out to the RJ. Look no further than the E190 and E195. How many seats will the next big RJ have and what mainline route will it take over?

A perception of lack of support is not the same thing as an actual lack of support. The regionals have never had any problem getting resources or support from ALPA. In reality, the problem that regionals have typically had is that it's tough to get motivated and qualified volunteers from the pilot group, because most of them are only there to build time and move on. They aren't interested in fighting to improve things at their regional, because they're only concerned with getting out. When you can't get good volunteers, you can't get very far, regardless of the resources provided by the national union.

That change was going nowhere until ALPA did a 180 and decided that Age 60 was no longer a good thing and now we get five more years of the most senior guys on the property. You'll have to explain to me what changed their mind other than Woerth being shown the street.

The change was really precipitated by the IACO rule change. When ICAO changed the rule, it was going to be incredibly difficult to keep it at 60 here. I disagreed with how it was done, and I still do, but that was the reason the Association changed its position. Once ALPA got behind the change, Congressman Oberstar got the bill out of committee and it was quickly ratified. He had been holding it up for quite a while when ALPA was opposed.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Pcl

A perception of lack of support is not the same thing as an actual lack of support. The regionals have never had any problem getting resources or support from ALPA. In reality, the problem that regionals have typically had is that it's tough to get motivated and qualified volunteers from the pilot group, because most of them are only there to build time and move on. They aren't interested in fighting to improve things at their regional, because they're only concerned with getting out. When you can't get good volunteers, you can't get very far, regardless of the resources provided by the national union.

Interesting. Obviously the grumbling I was hearing was only from one side. Good point and one that can only really be understood from someone in your position. I'll throw that rebuttal out there next time I hear some ex-alpa/regional guy bitching about alpa.

What about the farming out of the mainline flying?

 

[PCL_128]

What about the farming out of the mainline flying?

Obviously a big mistake, but hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to see how pilots might have felt "back in the day" that allowing a few Beech 1900s to fly feed wouldn't be a problem. It was only after 3 decades of concessionary bargaining and bankruptcies that managements were able to extract so much more from it, and before we knew it, it was out of control. I'm not sure that a lot of it was even avoidable, thanks to the horrible bankruptcy laws that are on the books.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Pcl

And this is an area where I've always held ALPA and APA complicit. I don't know how long you've been doing this gig but in the early days when the Comairs and Skywest's were merely feeders to the Hub and Spoke the mainline guys had a real attitude problem towards our commuter brethren. They didn't want them "stealing" their work and instead of bringing them into the party under their wing they stiff-armed them and allowed the companies to pit pilot against pilot. What should have been a collective effort by all to maintain control of all the flying and not allow the majority of the mainline flying to get farmed out to RJ's being built with better and better range, it became a race to the bottom.

Hopefully ALPA and APA have learned from the mistakes of the past. I know we benefited from that history. As I stated earlier we paid dearly for our Section One and even you would agree that it's the envy of the industry. I would have preferred NO CODEHSARE whatsoever but our problem was that we had those in our own union who were drinking too much of the kool-aid to see it differently.

 

[PCL_128]

And this is an area where I've always held ALPA and APA complicit. I don't know how long you've been doing this gig but in the early days when the Comairs and Skywest's were merely feeders to the Hub and Spoke the mainline guys had a real attitude problem towards our commuter brethren. They didn't want them "stealing" their work and instead of bringing them into the party under their wing they stiff-armed them and allowed the companies to pit pilot against pilot. What should have been a collective effort by all to maintain control of all the flying and not allow the majority of the mainline flying to get farmed out to RJ's being built with better and better range, it became a race to the bottom.

Couldn't agree more. Great summary of the problems of the past. Egos got in the way of people dealing with the problems effectively, and we've all suffered as a result. I believe we've come a long way from those days, and I don't see the same problems today.

As I stated earlier we paid dearly for our Section One and even you would agree that it's the envy of the industry.

In many ways, yes, I do agree, but I worry about the near-international code-share without seat restrictions. Allowing SWA to outsource a significant source of possible growth is troubling, especially when it can be done on small narrow-body aircraft instead of just on RJs. But yes, the domestic code-share protections are wonderful, and I think most mainline pilots across the industry do envy them.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Pcl

In many ways, yes, I do agree, but I worry about the near-international code-share without seat restrictions. Allowing SWA to outsource a significant source of possible growth is troubling, especially when it can be done on small narrow-body aircraft instead of just on RJs. But yes, the domestic code-share protections are wonderful, and I think most mainline pilots across the industry do envy them.

As I stated earlier. There were only so many battles to be won on codeshare. I feel we won the war. It wasn't everything, but it was damn close.

What is Airtran's scope regarding domestic and near international?

 

[ivauir]

PCl,

"troubling"?

Really?

I can't believe the spin your members tolerate.

Would you like to hold your section one (and applicable side letters) for a line by line comparison of ours (SWAPA)?

 

[PCL_128]

As I stated earlier. There were only so many battles to be won on codeshare. I feel we won the war. It wasn't everything, but it was damn close.

Agreed. I think you guys made the right decision. It just would have been nice to capture the near-international as well. You always have to make trades. We had to give up some seats to get holding company protections, so I know the feeling.

What is Airtran's scope regarding domestic and near international?

It's all based on seats and ASMs, so it doesn't differentiate between domestic or international. There are lots of different tiers depending on seats, number of mainline aircraft, growth, and ASMs, but the short answer is that it's limited to mostly 70-seaters at a max of 15% of block hours right now, with an allowance for 71-86 seaters for a handful of airplanes. It used to be limited to just 70-seats, but we gave up the extra few seats on a few airplanes to get the holding company protections and some other scope improvements. Definitely not what we wanted, but I think it was worth the trade.

PCl,

"troubling"?

Really?

I can't believe the spin your members tolerate.

Would you like to hold your section one (and applicable side letters) for a line by line comparison of ours (SWAPA)?

I think ours is troubling, too. There isn't a mainline scope section that I like, in fact. They're all a bunch of compromises that have been made over the years. It's all about measuring risk and making tough decisions.

 

[PapaWoody]

PCl,

"troubling"?

Really?

I can't believe the spin your members tolerate.

Would you like to hold your section one (and applicable side letters) for a line by line comparison of ours (SWAPA)?

From a union/airline that has pretty much no restrictions on codeshare, near-international or otherwise, for him to use the word "troubling" is just posturing for the sake of ALPA and their failed polices. It's reminiscent of Lee Moak saying that (and I quote) "independent unions have no chance of success" when the most successful union currently is SWAPA, an independent union, with the industry leading contract and industry leading scope. (Eat your heart out, Gen Lee and OYS) Just more examples of ALPA sticking their head in the sand while the world moves on. Long live the DPA!

PapaWoody

 

[Roomwithaview]

Pcl

Okay Here's our language regarding codeshare.

Domestic Codeshare
Southwest Airlines will not enter into a domestic Codeshare Agreement within the fifty (50)
United States without the agreement of the Association.

Codeshare for Regional Aircraft Flying
Southwest Airlines will not enter into any domestic or trans-border code share agreement
with a regional carrier or involving a regional aircraft except to provide inter-island service
within the Hawaiian Islands or inter-island service within the Caribbean Islands.

Near International/Trans-Border Codeshare
Near International/Trans-Border Codeshare will be defined exclusively as Codeshare
flights that include a trans-border segment between Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean and
a SWA city in the continental United States.
The combined total trans-border segment ASMs flown by SWA Near International/Trans-Border Codeshare partners pursuant to Near International/Trans-Border Agreements with SWA shall not exceed a total of four (4) percent of the total ASMs flown by SWA in the previous calendar year, excluding ASMs flown by SWA on Near International/Trans-Border flights, as measured on a one for one ASM basis, to include each common city pair.
The measure of SWA ASMs will be calculated using the ASMs reported in the SWA annual report unless another method is mutually agreed upon by SWA and SWAPA.

Other Codeshare
The Company will not enter into any other Codeshare and/or Marketing Agreement (to
include far international Codeshare flying) unless expressly delineated above, without the
agreement of the Association.

How does that stack up with AAI's?

 

[waveflyer]

I think the difference pcl that is more important is how we operate at SWA. The paid by the minute- constant playing of the safety card- adversarial relationships ALPa has w/ managements is something we'd like to avoid.

My argument is that ALPA didn't start it- their mgmt did. But it's very very different here. More than Nuts can tell you- more than your friends can tell you. We're militantly protective of the culture which is much more in line with success. We don't want something for nothing- we want fair value for productivity. The perception is that ALPA has not participated in profitability enough as adversarial cultures get entrenched and eventually have become cultural.
The viewpoint that is is naive to be productive and work hard and go the extra mike isn't deserved at SWA and simply won't be tolerated.
Are AT pilots up for that?

We ought to reward mgmt who treats is this well-

As for the SLI- just give it a rest. Have a comment - mail it in- but this will be a good combination as long as everyone keeps their attitudes positive and expectations in line w/ reality.

 

[redflyer65]

Will Gary put up with his own pilots not knowing how to spell?:laugh:

From the guy who knows how to spell RJ outsourcing. Nice!

 

[PCL_128]

I think the difference pcl that is more important is how we operate at SWA. The paid by the minute- constant playing of the safety card- adversarial relationships ALPa has w/ managements is something we'd like to avoid.

ALPA doesn't create adversarial relationships, managements do. ALPA merely responds when attacked. There are plenty of examples of ALPA having cooperative and even friendly relationships with managements. Delta has been a good example in recent years. Captain Moak and Richard Anderson worked together to build a healthy and respectful relationship between the union and the company. It's served them well. Is it as good as the relationship between SWA management and their pilots? No, but again, that's just a result of management. Delta management is certainly better than other legacy carriers in this regard, but not of the same mindset as SWA management. ALPA would work just fine in the kind of environment that you have at SWA. It would prosper, in fact. There just haven't been opportunities for that sort of relationship with managements at other carriers. SWA is one-of-a-kind in that regard.